|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
I recently purchased a pair of used Tyler Acoustics Taylo Reference Monitors. The ports have come loose due to rough handling during shipping and the 1.75" port cover appears to be choking the 2" port. I also believe the port may not be tuned correctly, since there is a significant spike at a certain frequency, which overpowers other bass frequencies. I'm hoping someone with more experience can provide me with the correct port diameter and length to tune it at the correct frequency. I would like to get a relatively flat frequency response if possible. I have very little experience with speaker design, so any help would be much appreciated.
Woofer: Seas Excel W18E001. (linked to specs) Tweeter: Scan-Speak Revelator 9900 External dimensions: 23cm x 26.5cm x 46cm Cabinet construction 2.54cm / 1 inch thick MDF Internal dimensions: 17.92cm x 21.72cm x 40.92cm Gross Internal volume: 16.92 Liters Net Internal volume: ??? (I'm not sure how to determine the net internal volume taking into account the massive crossover, internal brace, port and woofer / tweeter volume) Current port cut-out diameter: 2.5" / 6.35cm |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lyon
|
See on the specs, tha application note tab.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "Space Coast" Florida, USA
|
I ran this woofer in LEAP5 and I found the response for the ported version to be rather underwhelming. I feel the enclosure is too small for a vented design.
The port diameter of 1.75" is okay, but making it larger just makes the vent so long it will not fit the enclosure. Making it smaller just creates too much vent noise. I tried various tunings from the mid 30s Hz to 50 Hz and did not see a lot of difference in performance. However, a sealed box yields a little better bass response. Probably because the vented box size is too small to make the woofer work like it should. Here is the SPL graph of the sealed version at 100 Watts. The plot is into Half-Space, so you will have a baffle step response to deal with in Full-Space. ![]() Just for kicks, here is the vented version: ![]() I would plug the vent altogether and fill the enclosure with polyfill. Last edited by Loren42; 23rd September 2011 at 11:13 PM. |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lyon
|
I wonder if you have the 18WEX001 instead ?
If not, the closed box is the best solution as said. A middle solution is to make an aperiodic box : fill the vent with polyfill. |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
@jerome69
It's definitely a 18WE001, although an older version, with a copper color finished magnet and basket. @ Loren42 Thank you for your response. I forgot to mention that the enclosure is already filled with poly, I'm not sure if that will make any difference in the calculations, I will try sealing the port and using a sub to compensate for the frequencies below approx 60-70hz. I agree that the enclosure is small for this driver, I'm considering building a new, larger one. Just out of curiosity, what does your software show the length needs to be to tune the speaker at 40hz with a 2" port? I'm concerned that a 1.75" port may be too small for the 2.5" cut-out. I've used this online calculator, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. It shows a length of 21.62cm at 40hz with a 15L enclosure. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Hi,
FYI: As already mentioned:The box is too small for an BR, also the port in respect to the air velocity. b |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "Space Coast" Florida, USA
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
After some further research, I found that Seas changed the specs for this driver after 2007. I have the older version, for which a spec sheet can be found here. Could someone plug in these revised numbers and see whether it performs better ported or sealed? If ported, what would be the optimal frequency, port diameter / length? thanks =]
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lyon
|
Yes things are changed, better work in a ported box: 17L @ 36Hz
Port 2" Length = 9" but the diameter is not enough, you will have too much turbulence. D 2.5" L 15" is better but the length
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Enclosure size/port calculations.. | KuDeTa | Construction Tips | 9 | 26th May 2011 07:30 PM |
| slot port calculations | sts9fan | Construction Tips | 1 | 18th October 2010 04:14 PM |
| Port calculations | Austin Duggan | Multi-Way | 23 | 16th April 2008 09:27 AM |
| To port or not to port? Newbie with newly built mains | starquake | Multi-Way | 1 | 18th December 2004 12:51 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.11520 seconds (80.52% PHP - 19.48% MySQL) with 11 queries |